(June 3, 2011 at 5:21 am)tackattack Wrote: I thought agnosticism had nothing at all to do with theistic/atheistic belief structures and related to the certainty of knowledge?

You're right.

wiki Wrote:Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

Although the wiki article acknowledges that agnosticism is termed alot with 'claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity' it doesn't say that agnosticism is ONLY to do with 'these' claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

(June 3, 2011 at 5:30 am)Napoleon666 Wrote:

(June 3, 2011 at 5:21 am)tackattack Wrote: I thought agnosticism had nothing at all to do with theistic/atheistic belief structures and related to the certainty of knowledge?

You're right.

wiki Wrote:Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable

Although the wiki article acknowledges that agnosticism is termed alot with 'claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity' it doesn't say that agnosticism is ONLY to do with 'these' claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Sorry but we deal with claims of deity on this site , do we not?
Therefore we are dealing with the meaning of the terms in regards to the question of god's existence.

(June 3, 2011 at 5:38 am)bozo Wrote: Sorry but we deal with claims of deity on this site , do we not?
Therefore we are dealing with the meaning of the terms in regards to the question of god's existence.

That is also a good fucking point.

(June 1, 2011 at 6:54 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 31, 2011 at 6:49 am)diffidus Wrote: When I say Agnostic, I mean someone who recognises that there is simply not sufficient knowledge to rule out, with 100% certainty, that God exists.

For me, and Atheist view must be dependent upon a scientific view of the world i.e. that it is based upon a combination of empirical evidence combined with scientific understanding. This gives us an ever deeper understanding of nature and the universe in which we live.

........

On this basis, for me, the only logical position is one of the type of Agnosticism that I have defined. Atheism must rely, hugely, upon a good dose of faith!

Scientific view of the world is such that in principle, not just in practice, there will never, ever be sufficient knowledge to rule anything out with 100% certainty. Using the logic you applied above, the only logical position on anything, including whether you were born out of the sphincter of an alligator, is agnosticism.

However, if you apply agnosticism to any particular god, but not to your parentage or mode of birth, then that strongly implies either:

1. You've been sold a special pleading style of world view in which you, possibly overawed by the magnitude of stupid devotion in others, treat the trivial possibility of god's existence differently from the trivial possibility of your being born out of the ass of an alligator.

2. or A fundamental lack of grasp of the very quantitative, not qualitative, nature of certainty in all knowledge, and therefore you entertain non-sesnsical objections from the stupid devotee purely because the non-zero nature of infinitesimal possibility where it applies to the particularly interested devotee's worship has been pointed out to you, where as the non-zero nature of the possibility that you were born out of the ass of an alligator has not, because you fail to see that qualitative similarity of their mathematical insignificance.

Diffidus:

Your first statement is not true: In Euclidean geometry, the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degress. This is a statement of absolute fact. There are literally billions of other such statements I could make that are statements of fact. Telepathy is impossible. This is a statement of belief and not absolute fact since it depends on our current state of knowledge - I keep an open mind on this.

When you make the statement ' infinitismal possibility....' , how do you know? We are at a point in history. A few hundred years ago people applied leeches to their skin and bled themselves to cure a fever. Are we now so close in this generation to the very ebb of the tide of knowledge. Funny how every generation thinks along these lines. Prior to the WW1 it was believed by many that a war in Europe had become impossible due the economic interdependence of the countries. After WW1 it was widely believed that WW1 had been the 'war to end all wars'. Then came world war 2. I am not as confident as you that humankind has reached the ebb in the great tide of human knowledge. We are just another generation of people, it is good to learn from history - for all I know our current state of knowledge could be just a drop in the ocean - this is why I keep an open mind.

@bozo- I did, as I (and your dictionary) say agnosticism has nothing directly to relate to a theological arguement but can be a descriptor of a type of belief. ie. I'm agnoistic about a lot of topics especially ones' I haven't personally tested, one of them is not my theology.

(June 3, 2011 at 8:53 am)tackattack Wrote: @bozo- I did, as I (and your dictionary) say agnosticism has nothing directly to relate to a theological arguement but can be a descriptor of a type of belief. ie. I'm agnoistic about a lot of topics especially ones' I haven't personally tested, one of them is not my theology.

I'll try again, this time verbatim from my Chambers dictionary.
agnostic- (n )a peson who believes that we know nothing of things beyond material phenomena; that a Creator, creative cause, and unseen world are unknown or unknowable things.
( adj ) coined by T.H.Huxley in 1869 from Gr. agnostos, unknown, unknowable.

If people choose to use the term in other topics, good for them. But it does appear to me that the term is primarily concerned with theology.

I just did a 5 dictionary comparison. When used as a noun, some claim it primarily deals with knowledge while the majority specify knowledge of spiritual things and a position that it can't be known. It's treated in the vernacular as an antiparticle of Gnosis. Treated as an adjective though it clearly descibes knowledge. Which your dictionary also agrees with. I would say it's all semantics but I'd describe someone agnositic if I understood them to believe absolute knowledge was unknowable and and atheist if they lacked belief in god(s). I guess for clarity I could call someone and Agnostic when using it as a noun; when I know they hold both beliefs.

I mean do you say "I'm an agnostic" or "I'm agnostic"? Would be the determiner as to it's use I suppose.

Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Diffidus please prove to me that your abstract math is true in the empirical sense. I want to observe a real world perfect geometric shape very much.

(June 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm)eric209 Wrote: Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Diffidus please prove to me that your abstract math is true in the empirical sense. I want to observe a real world perfect geometric shape very much.

Diffidus:

I said that it was a statement of absolute fact not that you could prove it by empirical measurement. An empirical fact might be that the planet earth is smaller than the universe that contains it.

(June 5, 2011 at 5:44 pm)diffidus Wrote:

(June 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm)eric209 Wrote: Empirical: Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment

Diffidus please prove to me that your abstract math is true in the empirical sense. I want to observe a real world perfect geometric shape very much.

Diffidus:

I said that it was a statement of absolute fact not that you could prove it by empirical measurement. An empirical fact might be that the planet earth is smaller than the universe that contains it.

Yes but under science all laws and theory are open to adjustment should new evidence be discovered. This leaves open the very improbable possibility that the whole universe and the earth does not exist at all and we are all part of a simulation in the real universe. This does not mean we should adopt a view of being agnostic to the idea of each being part in a simulation. we can rule it out as statistically insignificant. I believe we should and can do the same with supernatural myths.

There is any number of improbable realities that would be able to disprove anything empirical or otherwise. This does not negate the value of empirical evidence. It does negate the value of the highly improbable until empirical evidence is provided.